Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, February 28, 2014

Vestigial Organs Going to the Dogs

"Evolution is true because of vestigial organs!", claim the Autons of Evolution. These are supposedly remnants of evolution that have no function, but that is an outdated claim based on circular reasoning, arguing from ignorance — and wishful thinking. Some evolutionists even embarrass themselves by claiming that the human appendix is a vestigial organ (or "vestigial structure"), which is a long discredited claim

In their efforts to hound creationists into believing that they're right, some proponents of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution are making the claim that the clavicle of dogs is also vestigial. But again, they are barking up the wrong tree. Creationists are proved right yet again.
In comparison to human beings, dogs have a rather different shoulder design, and the same applies to many other carnivorous and hoofed animals too, such as and cats and horses. The shoulder bones appear somewhat disconnected from the rest of the skeleton and dogs don’t have the obvious collar bone (clavicle) that we humans have. The tiny canine clavicle has a variety of sizes and shapes in adult dogs and some evolutionists have argued that it is rudimentary; implying that it’s now a largely ‘useless leftover’ from an earlier stage in canine evolution. But claims of it being vestigial don’t stack up. Together with other parts of the shoulder anatomy (termed the ‘clavicular complex’), the clavicle plays an important role in canine locomotion.
To finish reading, follow the scent to "Is the dog’s ‘collar bone’ vestigial?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, February 27, 2014

"Don't Miss the Boat" by Paul Taylor — Book Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Evolutionary Dogma Guy, Nye decided it would be a good idea to ridicule Noah's ark and the Genesis Flood. In his prepackaged-sounding objections to creation science and the Flood, he engaged in numerous logical fallacies. One was asserting uninformed opinions that would have a negative influence on listeners (prejudicial conjecture). One of these was that some shipbuilders designed a ship that sank, therefore, Noah's ark could not have worked. Like so many others of his nature, he did not do his homework, embarrassing himself and other evolution propagandists.

Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham managed to get people thinking and asking questions.

"Don't Miss the Boat" by Paul Taylor discusses Noah's ark, the Genesis Flood and the Bible. He shows the theology and science, giving the honest inquirer some hard facts to consider.

Don't Miss the Boat — Facts to Keep Your Faith Afloat by Paul Taylor answers some questions and will prompt further investigation. The Genesis Flood is a biblical event, and Paul gives us a clear biblical viewpoint as well as the science of the Flood, drawing from several excellent sources. It is divided into different sections:
  • Expositions, emphasizing the typology of Christ from the ark. "A type is not a metaphor. It is something that is real, but that also has spiritual significance."
  • Ancient history of the immediate post-Flood time and how old earth compromises entered more recent theology.
  • Science is next, "For some, the scientific information is what makes the subject interesting. For others, being blinded with technicalities is undesirable, so it should be possible for such people to skip or skim through this section", but he simplifies it where possible. 
  • A fiction section, short first-person accounts of living at the time.
  • A gospel presentation showing how the ark is a type of Christ.

Taylor discusses different Flood models by creationists, especially in the geology areas. He emphasizes more than once that the people who propose their scientific models know that the Bible is inspired, not their models. Theories and models change, but this does not threaten their faith in Scripture itself.

There was one area that I did not appreciate: Radiometric dating in Chapter 13. "I need to underline this point: radiometric dating is NOT inaccurate." Keep reading. I would phrase it as a "yes, but" item. Paul stresses that radiometric dating is extremely accurate, and highly-trained scientists make their livings performing it. However, those results of billions of years are based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

Don't Miss the Boat will give the honest inquirer a great deal of useful information as well as reference material for further research. It shows how the Scripture clearly teaches that the Flood was global, and is scientifically feasible — once someone drops the evolutionary presuppositions and biases. Taylor also shows how the ark was not only possible, but reasonable.

Do I agree with everything he says? No. Do I disagree over items that matter? No, again. Would Bill Nye made so many blunders in the debate if he had read it? Probably, but he would not have had any excuses. Do I recommend the book? Yes! It is available in paperback and e-book formats. There is also a DVD to go with it that I have not yet seen. As I am writing this, the book and DVD set are on sale. Did I get compensation for reviewing the book or mentioning the sale? Nope.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Making Fish Faces at Evolution

Once again, evolutionary scientists (with the help of their press) are spinning sensationalistic speculations as fact. This contrivance is to "explain" the evolution of the face from fish. Hopefully, there will be some scientists who will disagree.

Naturally, Darwin's Cheerleaders will pass this along as proof for evolution and carp that creation science is wrong. It is indeed unfortunate that too many people lack the critical thinking skills needed to discern the scale of this latest futility. For one thing, this is loaded with assumptions and presuppositions. Another problem is that the long-discredited embryonic recapitulation idea is being dredged up yet again. Creationists do not have to resort to such disingenuous tactics.
Evolutionists say they have filled in the gaps in the origin of the human face. Building on a 2013 report about a placoderm that turned an earlier fish story on its head the latest contributor to facial history—Romundina—is being advanced as one of the most primitive jawed vertebrates. Romundina, an 8-inch long armored fish found in Silurian and Devonian rock, was a fish of such very little brain that its nostrils had room to sink back between its eyes.

Darwin claimed in his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals that, because some animals have expressive faces, the human ability to display emotion through facial expression is a consequence of human kinship with animals. “The face is one of the most important and emotionally significant parts of our anatomy, so it is interesting to understand how it came into being,” says Per Ahlberg, coauthor of the latest fish story to be published in Nature. The study explains the step-by-step transitions that presumably occurred during evolution of the face from a primitive lamprey-like ancestor.
You can read the rest of why this latest conjecture is not worth it's salt at "Fish Brains Grew Till We Have Faces, Evolutionists Say".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Trilobites Take a Bite out of Evolutionary Theory

Trilobites, those (probably) extinct marine bug-like critters that sometimes resemble the horseshoe crab, are fouling up evolution again. The so-called "Cambrian explosion" has been a thorn in the side of evolutionists for a long time: The Cambrian strata is full of fully-formed creatures. Bam! They keep trying to explain away this evidence of Creation and the Flood to no avail. Trilobites are a part of it.

Trilobite fossils are found in many sizes and have several classifications. They were also rather complex, with no sign of evolutionary ancestors. That is bad enough for evolutionists, but their fossils strongly indicate rapid burial through a catastrophic Flood.
Image by Vichaya Kiatying-Angsulee / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Trilobite fossils are found in many sizes and have several classifications. They were also rather complex, with no sign of evolutionary ancestors. That is bad enough for evolutionists, but their fossils strongly indicate rapid burial through a catastrophic Flood.
Trilobites are one of the most popular fossils for collectors and are found all over the world. The Ute Indians used one species as an amulet, and there is even a cave in France called the Grotte du Trilobite that contained a relic made out of one of these extinct marine creatures.
Trilobites are members of the phylum Arthropoda, which includes spiders, insects, and crustaceans. Today, members of this group make up at least 85 percent of the species on Earth and live in every environment. Insects alone account for over 870,000 of these species. God designed all arthropods with an exoskeleton (i.e., an outer skeleton) that is segmented into appendages. In Greek, arthron means joint and podos means foot. This exoskeleton does not grow as the animal grows but rather has to be shed— molted—as the animal matures.
To find out what this means for biblical creationists and how it frustrates proponents of evolution, read the rest of "Trilobites: Sudden Appearance and Rapid Burial".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 24, 2014

Questioning the Evolution Propagandists

The mainstream media and the science press have a few things in common. One is the presentation of one-sided news. Both are fond of the sensational stuff, and will be inaccurate to further their worldviews as well as increase sales. Secularists in the science press will take discoveries that are not yet fully analyzed, grab take the speculations of scientists or even make up their own "facts" by twisting or even ignoring actual facts.

When given only one side of the story and getting dishonest with the truth, they go beyond propaganda and into brainwashing. Unfortunately, people are no longer trained to think analytically. Instead, they believe what "scientists say" and "studies show". The more enthusiastic of Darwin's Cheerleaders will call us "liars" for daring to ask questions and show flaws in logic. (Ironically, when they call us liars for presenting evidence that they do not like, they are the ones who are liars, because they are lying about us!) Then they troll creationists and post in forums where they can pretend that they're important.

We do not need guesses and speculations based on evolutionary presuppositions pass off as facts. Nor do we need anti-creationists passing along that same bad information. What needs to be done by thinking people is to show some healthy skepticism to the evolutionist press and ask questions — and demand answers.
Prove it!” used to be the goal of science.  With rampant speculation in the science news media, it’s time to demand accountability.
Some science headlines ask rhetorical questions.  The default answer should be, “No.”
  • Did alien life evolve just after the Big Bang?” (Live Science).  Default answer:  “No.”
  • Did life begin in a drop of water?” (Live Science).  Default answer:  “No.”
  • Talk is cheep:  Do caged birds sing a key to language?” (New Scientist).  Default answer:  “No.”
Some science headlines tease with possibility words like “could” or “may.”  The default response should be, “Maybe not; could not.”
Read the rest of "Just Say No! to Evolutionary Speculation".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Audio-Video Podcast 18 — Here I Come to Save the Day!

A Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy fanboy was acting like his hero and decided that he needed to set us st00pid dumb Xtians straight and heroically save "science" with his mighty intellect. One of his main objections is my statement that evolutionists do not do their homework. Ironically, he did not do his homework and helped prove my point!

It seemed that he was grousing about "winning" arguments (I believe a lot of this kind of trolling is all about ego). Can't help you, I won't let someone declare a conclusion with faulty premises and bad reasoning. Like Nye, he was full of stuff and nonsense, but he exceeded Nye in non sequiturs and other logical fallacies. I took his diatribe apart, and showed that you can do this too. There were other fallacies I did not bother to address, but I think you will get the idea. The MP3 can be downloaded here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, February 21, 2014

Flowers in Amber Cause Further Evolutionary Setbacks

Amber is plant resin that dripped down trees, trapping insects and so on. It became fossilized, and paleontologists have a great time studying the amber as well as whatever was inside of it. (There is jewelry made from amber as well, with or without insects and things.) Amber has been an excellent preservative agent.

morgueFile / Karpati Gabor
Evolutionary scientists have their presuppositions and assumptions, which include how many millions of years to assign to amber. These speculations drip to the ground when the stuff has encased something that should not exist according to their presumptions. In this case, flowers from alleged millions of years ago. And they are just as "advanced" as modern flowers. Instead of supporting evolution, it fouls up their timeline and it needs to be adjusted. Again. But this is exactly what biblical creationists expect to find.
Flowers preserved in amber from Myanmar (aka Burma) are not only breathtakingly beautiful but also demonstrate that Cretaceous complexity was the norm for flowering plants. Darwin considered such fossilized floral complexity and biodiversity to be an “abominable mystery” for evolution. 
These tiny Burmese blossoms—only a millimeter (about 3 hundredths of an inch) in diameter—were frozen in time by tree sap. “Here you have a hundred-million-year-old flower that looks like it was blooming last week,” says George Poinar, Jr., lead author of the report published in Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas.
The rest of this article is at "Fossil Flowers in Amber Don't Solve Darwin’s 'Abominable Mystery'".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Creationist from Ignorance of Evolution?

One of the most annoying things I found about Bill Nye the Talking Points Guy in the debate with Ken Ham was that he regurgitated "science" that creationists have addressed years, even decades, previously. (He was also condescending, but never mind about that now.) Nye also used lame arguments that have been brought up many times, and we still see them now. Atheists and evolutionists seem to dislike doing their homework, being hopelessly locked into defending their fundamentally flawed worldview.

When people use the same kind of "argument" that Nye brought up about evolution being essential to science, some of us will point out that great scientists of the past were biblical creationists, Christians, theists and so on. The counter-claim is that sure, they were clever people, and they would have believed evolution if Darwin had written back in their time.

Such a claim reeks of desperation. Also, they are inadvertently claiming godlike powers because they "know" how someone would have thought. This claim contains a boatload of assumptions that cannot be rationally justified. One of these is that Darwin came up with evolution, but the concept is actually quite ancient. Another assumption is that evolution has so much logic and evidence supporting it, those poor deluded fools could not possibly reject evolution and cling to that silly superstition of creation.

I have encountered these kinds of claims recently. Here is an article from 2002 that address this irrational claim, in this case, involving Sir Isaac Newton.
From Timothy … of the UK. In his letter, printed below, he tries to counter the point that the great founders of modern science were creationists — see Creationist Biographies. His letter is reprinted, with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, showing that there are a number of reasons why it’s legitimate for creationists to use this argument.
You can read the rest of "Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative?", and be sure to read the addendum at the end.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Mosquito Fossil Shakes Evolutionary Dating Foundations

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11.4, HCSB

From the beginning, mankind has wanted to be important in his own eyes. Eve fell for the lie of Satan, "You shall be like God" (Genesis 3). Somewhere around 2200 BC, people were still trying to make a name for themselves and challenge God's authority. The ancient pagan religion of evolutionism has been a justification for the rejection of God; Darwin popularized it as "scientific" and put this paganism in a lab coat.

Using evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, charts are made for their timelines and data is force-fit into a naturalistic paradigm. There are frequent discoveries that rattle the cages of the Evo Sith, but they manage to carry on with their worldview despite the evidence. In this case, a compression fossil of a mosquito was found in the Kishenehn Formation. It still had blood in its abdomen, which cannot happen for something of the putative age of the formation. Additionally, oil exists in the formation, which also should not happen. Empirical data discredits evolutionary assumptions. These things happen when people want to reject the Creator and inflate their own self-importance.
Researchers recently examined a spectacular mosquito fossil containing still-bloody remnants within its body. They dated the fossil based on the assumed age of the Kishenehn Formation where it was found, assigning it an age of 46 million years. Publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the team used energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to confirm in triplicate the presence of iron and heme (blood pigments) inside the fossil mosquito’s abdomen, where living female mosquitos store their blood meals. The study authors wrote, “The combination of these two determinations indicates that the porphyrins [dark red pigments] are derived from the oxygen-carrying heme moiety of hemoglobin”—real blood. 
This mosquito’s abdomen, and likely its entire body, was never mineralized—i.e., replaced by minerals. Instead, it was preserved as a tiny carcass in a rock, called acompression fossil. Secular researchers have detected hemoglobin remnants like these in several other species, including tyrannosaur, hadrosaur, and mosasaur fossils. 
These fossils pose a huge problem for evolutionary dating methods. Although a new study has shown that iron actually helps preserve dead nearby cells, no experiment has yet demonstrated a tissue decay rate that supports preservation over millions of years. Most longevity studies of biomolecules like hemoglobin, DNA, and collagen show decay rates in ranges that spell total disintegration of sterile samples from within a few months to several hundred thousand years, assuming reasonable Earth surface temperatures.
To see what the buzz is about, fly over to "Bloody Mosquito Pierces Standard Fossil Dating Procedure".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Someday, My Antecessor Prints Will Come

Evolutionists should try removing their Darwin spectacles, because their evolutionary presuppositions cause them to see things in a very distorted manner. Homo antecessor has been the recipient of some creative, unusual and possibly even desperate stories.

morgueFile / zabmo
Using assumptions that evolution is true, rocks that footprints were found in are a certain number of millions of years old, Homo antecessor lived at that time — this, and other wild conjectures about our alleged evolutionary ancestors are not based on evidence, but on storytelling of things that are not really there. And ignoring more rational explanations for what has been observed.
Details make the story of Homo antecessor an improbable tale of human evolution.
It was Europe’s entry into the early human evolution story.  It was the pride of the Spaniards.  It was Europe’s answer to Africa’s Homo ergaster, the earliest population of Homo outside of Africa.  It was named Homo antecessor, an evolutionary missing link living between 800,000 and 1.2 million years ago, according to the evolutionary timeline (antecessor being synonymous with predecessor; that’s why some nickname it “Pioneer Man.”)  The Spanish researchers who found some 90 fossil pieces at the Gran Dolina, Atapuerca site believe they have honed the age to about 900,000 years, according to Science Daily.  Wikipedia says the best-preserved fossil is a maxilla.  From other pieces, paleoanthropologists have inferred that the species was just about as tall as modern man, but had a slightly smaller brain size.
But then something weird happened.  In May 2013, during a low tide, human tracks appeared in some rocks along the English coast at Happisburgh.  By chance, some archaeologists came across them and thought they looked like footprints.  They came to make casts and photograph them.  Since they were found in rock thought to be a million years old, evolutionists immediately linked them to the long-lost Homo antecessor, deducing that a family with children passed this way a million years ago.
To finish reading, hop on over to "Downfall of Homo antecessor, Ancestor in Name Only". Addendum: More information on the topic is here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 17, 2014

Another Flood of Evidence Refuting the Old Earth Premise

This episode of Real Science Radio with Bob Enyart and Fred Williams has some detailed information available. They are discussing the "List of Not So Old Things", a regular feature on the show where scientific observations demonstrate that the earth is young, not old. There is an audio version available giving an overview, but I encourage you to read the post as well, since they cover a great deal of material and give supporting links. The picture below shows where to look for the audio. RSR's 2014 List of Not So Old Things.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Sunday, February 16, 2014

An Apology

I fouled up, and I feel quite badly about it. One of my sources of material turned out to hold some theological positions that I cannot condone. I felt that if I used them, I was risking sending people into error if they got involved with this group. Although I will defend creation science and refute evolution, I try very hard to avoid using material from groups that are heretical, apostate, compromisers on the authority of Scripture, unchristian religions, cults and so on. 

But I missed. Several posts are now missing, and some are partial posts because my introductions to the articles had relevant material and links, so I left those in. I want to give God my best service, and I want to give you the best material I can, too. (For that matter, there are articles from reliable sources that I will reject for various reasons.) Another learning experience for me. Sorry for the difficulties.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Audio-Video Podcast 17 — Fallacies of Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity

Piltdown Superman, Podcast, The Question Evolution Project, Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Back in action, and back to discussing informal logical fallacies. This time, we'll deal with the related fallacies of Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity. Since people tend to think with their emotions rather than their minds, they fall prey to people who want to manipulate them through these tactics, added with appeal to ridicule, the genetic fallacy and others. But truth is not determined by consensus or popularity. The MP3 can be downloaded here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, February 14, 2014

No Evolutionary Explanation for Flight Formations

Migratory birds flying in formation tend to cause people to look up in wonder. They have been doing this long before aircraft were invented. It was learned that fly in an aerodynamically efficient manner. As technology advances and scientists get more ambitious, further information comes to light.

stock.xchng / scataudo
Now scientists are learning that the flight formations are mathematically precise and intricate. Interestingly, the Evo Sith have not even bothered to some up with filghty evolutionary "explanations". They did not evolve these advanced, efficient flight systems, they were designed that way.
Birds fly in that beautiful V formation for a reason, and it requires sophisticated abilities in high precision aerodynamics.
Scientists have finally confirmed that the V-formation used by geese and other large migratory birds provides an energy benefit.  A new paper in Nature describes the work of Steven Portugal and team, who trained rare northern bald ibises to trust them as surrogate moms.  First outfitting the birds with data collectors, they took them up on practice flights following an ultralight aircraft and filmed their flying dynamics.
According to the BBC News, the birds not only found the ideal positions behind their flockmates, but timed their wingflaps for best advantage, too.  The ideal position behind and to the side of a front bird allows them to take advantage of the “upwash” of the front bird’s flap, and the synchronized flapping (in phase with wave trains) avoids the downwash.  As a result, the flock propagates a wavetrain down both arms of the V that gives them an extra lift on a cushion of air, saving energy.
To finish reading, wing your way over to "Formation Flight Physics Mastered by Birds".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Question Evolution Day 2014, The Evolution of This Creationist

Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Piltdown Superman, Charles Darwin
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Taking a different approach on this Question Evolution Day. This article will have some thoughts, feelings and testimony.

I am on record for saying that I became interested in creation science long ago, and enthusiastically learned it. For a while, I was presenting it in churches with both scientific evidence and the theological importance. Ken Ham was working with the Institute for Creation Research back then, and I attended seminars and presentations. I met Ken, Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Morris, Don DeYoung and others. Also, I had an impromptu debate with a couple of evolutionists that had a lasting impact on my naïve approach — I tried to convince them through evidence.

Due to various reasons, I put God on the shelf for about fifteen years. Long story, too long to repeat here.

During my backslidden time, I was investigating Buddhism, involved in politics and doing other odds-and-ends on another Weblog. But I had not rejected God, and would even write articles defending the Bible and refuting atheism. I think God was at work in me at that time, because some of the material I wrote began to convict me to come back to him.

About three years ago, I rededicated my life to Jesus Christ and felt the need to regain lost ground with good Bible teaching. My interest in creation science came roaring back, and this Weblog (and my special studies of logical fallacies) eventually came out of that period. So did Question Evolution Day (inspired by the Question Evolution campaign of CMI), and a Facebook Page of the same name that was changed to The Question Evolution Project because it is a resource, not just something for one day a year.

What a difference fifteen years made in the availability of creation materials! In the 1990s, I was not on the Web. Today, I have e-books, podcasts, Web articles, videos and other materials available, many of them are free. (But I still buy actual books made out of paper, can't ever give that up.) Now I can go and look things up at Creation Ministries International, Answers In Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation-Evolution Headlines and many others.

When I began, I wanted to do what I did in the past: Argue from evidence. After all, it was an exciting time to be a creationist in the 1990s, and is even more so now, since the evidence supports creation and refutes evolution. Since some people falsely claim that creationism is just "GodDidIt" or that we are into Fideism, I was going to use as much science as possible and let people make up their own minds. But I did not realize that I was continuing the same mistake that I had made in that impromptu debate long ago.

Then presuppositional apologetics entered the picture. Looking back, I realize that the seeds had been planted many years before, but not as overtly as I experienced it recently. (Ironically, this is usually a Reformed view, and I am not a Calvinist. Nor do I identify as Arminian.) Presuppositional (or "Covenantal", or "Transcendental") apologetics is horribly misunderstood and misrepresented. Also, there are several schools of thought on this, so as in so many other discussions, definitions are important. Not all schools of transcendental apologetics agree on methods.

My greatest influence on presuppositional apologetics is Dr. Jason Lisle. His book The Ultimate Proof of Creation and video are tremendous. Lisle drew from Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and I listened to several audio versions of his videos and purchased some MP3s. I also learned from Michael Butler's lectures, especially the ones on the foundation, goal, method and nature of science. Many of these lectures, I listened to repeatedly.

"What does this have to do with creation science, Cowboy Bob?"
Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Piltdown Superman, Charles Darwin

I learned the importance of presuppositions and worldviews. No, I am not going to go into detail on that. Suffice to say that we all have our worldviews by which we live our lives, examine our experiences and interpret our evidence. As a biblical creationist, I presuppose that the Bible is true; it is my foundation. We all have our starting points. Most atheists assume that there is no God, that naturalism and evolution are true. The truth is, both atheists and evolutionists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves! Belief in God is not an intellectual matter so much as it is a spiritual matter. Ray Comfort made that clear to me.

The Bible tells us that people already know that God exists, but suppress the truth in their rebellion against God. It also says that the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful. Sure, people think they are intellectual and reasonable, but they are deceived. They belong to their father down below, who has blinded them so that they cannot understand the deeper things of God.

This is not about evidence. I like to say that for every evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device. Just like in my debate long ago, the same thing happens: I offer evidence, they offer excuses to reject it (including using logical fallacies and calling creationists "liars" because they do not want to examine the evidence), offer counter-evidence and arguments, you counter their counter... Despite the presuppositions and assertions of naturalists, humans are spiritual creatures. People have stated that they do not believe that God exists, don't quote that Bible at me and so on — and come to faith in Christ anyway.

So, my approach has evolved. Evidence is important and questions need to be answered. But I refuse to go to "neutral ground", because that does not exist. When someone wants you to discuss on "neutral ground" and leave the Bible out of it, you're forgetting that Jesus made it clear that there is no neutral ground, whoever is not for him is against him! Like Dr. Lisle suggested, we can show evidence, but within a presuppositional framework. I was startled one day to realize that I had been exposed to this approach from creationist organizations many years before!

I will not put God on trial, and let the mighty intellectual use his wisdom to decide whether or not God exists. Taking that approach says that I do not really believe the Bible, and I am also insulting God. If someone is going to come at me presuming atheism and disrespecting the Bible, then I go into worldviews and why atheism is irrational, lacking the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. Further, the biblical creationist worldview is the only one that makes sense of human experience and our human condition. I am not ashamed of the gospel, it is powerful.

So yes, I have changed and believe that I am on the right road for presenting the creation message. I am in good company. But there is still a great deal of room for learning and for improvement on my part. Christians, pray for me in my growth and that I continue to seek glory for God, not glory for Bob. Evolutionists can see if they are able to give real answers, not boilerplate answers, to the 15 Questions for Evolutionists. This is a great time to be a biblical creationist!

Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, Creation, Creation Science, Bible, Creationism

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Box Jellyfish — The Eyes Have It

Wikimedia Commons / Guido Gautsch
Question Evolution Day is February 12. Just thought I'd remind you.

Evolutionary paradigms assume that the box jellyfish (one species is called sea wasp because of its nasty sting) is a "simple" organism. But like so many other things, the more science advances, the more intricate scientists realize that some things are. Using typical circular reasoning based on assumptions, evolution happened, the jellyfish is one of the first creatures to evolve eyes, therefore we can find out what eyes were like back then.

Wouldn't the eyes have evolved? The jellyfish is virtually unchanged in "millions of years". One argument of convenience for evolutionists is the contradiction that evolution is a necessity of life, but if something is unchanged, then it did not need to evolve. With "reasoning" like this, they should not wonder that so many of us question evolution. The eyes of the box jellyfish are complex and unchanged? No surprise for creationists.

Humans do well with two eyes. The jellyfish has more. Scientists are surprised at what they can do. 
Scientists have known for over a century that box jellyfish (also known as cubozoans, after their cubic shape) have a unique array of eyes. They have 24 in total, of four different types.

Eight eyes resemble those of vertebrates (i.e. creatures with a backbone, e.g. humans), featuring “a sophisticated lens, retina, iris and cornea, all in an eye only 0.1 millimetres across”. But the specifics of function and performance hadn’t been explored—it was known only that its eyes gave the box jellyfish sufficient vision to respond to light and shadows, and to steer away from obstacles. (Box jellyfish do not just ‘drift’ along and eat whatever their tentacles ensnare; rather they are active predators, swimming towards objects of interest and avoiding others.)
Thus box jellyfish presented something of a riddle to evolutionists who acknowledged, “it has been a puzzle why they need such a complex set of eyes”, i.e. if the jellyfish only needed to discern light from dark. At the same time, their evolutionary paradigm held that “jellyfish belong to one of the first groups of animals to evolve eyes (the phylum Cnidaria)” and therefore “understanding how their eyes operate will show scientists what eyes were like early in evolutionary time.”
You can finish looking at "Box Jellyfish Eyes Surprise Scientists". But be careful of those stinging tentacles.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 10, 2014

The Untruth about Creationist Predictions

One reason I think that Bill Nye's rhetoric sounds like it is canned is because I had heard much of it before. (Also, because he used "evidence" that had been written about by creationists years before, look for links to the Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries International sites here.) One thing that stands out is the boilerplate slander that anti-creationists use. Although I am not sure Bill Nye directly used it, a common untruth is the claim that creationists do not contribute to science and are not published in scientific journals.

Another untruth that Nye and others use is the claim that creationists do not make scientific predictions. This shows massive ignorance of the history of scientific inquiry. Or is it simply an attempt to poison the well? Perhaps something else. At any rate, my favorite example is how creationist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys made predictions about planetary magnetic fields that were proven right. In addition to that, Dr. David DeWitt gives us some material to think about.
In the historic debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, Nye insisted repeatedly that the creation model was not scientific and that it did not make predictions. This was in spite of the several creationist predictions that Ken Ham had outlined in his opening statement. Though many more could have been given, this sampling should have sufficed.

In a public debate, it is extremely difficult to give a very detailed explanation, so I am thankful for an opportunity to write an article detailing exactly how the creation model led me to make a specific creationist prediction in my own research which has been verified by results from evolutionists themselves.
You can learn more by reading the rest of "Does the Creation Model Make Predictions? Absolutely!"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, February 8, 2014

Audio-Video Podcast 16 — Ham, Nye and Errata

My shortest audio-video podcast ever. The MP3 can be downloaded here. Are you tired of videos? We had a lot going on in the past week, so I kept this short. That, and the fact that the one I had planned (and had started) was going to be dreadful. So, just a couple of comments about that Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate, a few other odds and ends, then back to work preparing for Question Evolution Day.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, February 7, 2014

Video on Bummer Time in the Evolution Bunker

What went on in the Evolution Bunker after the #creationdebate?

There are several opinions on who won the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and why. Creationists tended to see flaws in both Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and especially in the debate format itself. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders ranted that Nye won through "science" despite his numerous logical fallacies and condescending attitude (he disrespected the entire state of Kentucky, too). Some evolutionists admit that Nye failed. Most creationist accounts that I read did not give a clear victory to Ham.

But the news spread, and Hitler found out...

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Reflections on the Ken Ham - Bill Nye Debate

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are quite a few reviews and editorials about the Ken Ham and Bill "I Played a Scientist On TV" Nye debate, so I am going to keep my remarks brief. No need for a full analysis, others are doing that rather well.

Evolutionists and atheists are claiming victory. Creationists are doing the same, but are divided. Some of us (yes, us) are not claiming it to be a "slam dunk".

In an earlier interview, I stated that I expected Ken Ham to win the debate. I was right. Sort of. There were qualifiers, that Ham had to keep Nye on topic and watch out for logical fallacies. Nye did not disappoint, indulging in prejudicial conjecture (such as saying that the Bible is wrong, it can't happen, what about this that and the other, but didn't bother to do research on the topics, just made assertions), straw man arguments, elephant hurling (Nye was asking Ham numerous questions, but the format did not allow for proper responses), subtle ad hominem remarks and more.

I can see why atheists love him, just like Richard Dawkins. They put into words the excuses that people already have in their minds for rejecting God and for not honestly examining what creationists really believe and teach.

Meanwhile, Nye ignored the evidence that Ham presented and his questions that were posed early in the debate. This includes his long-standing question: "Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?" Nope. 

Bill Nye did not need to be there. His elephant hurling, prejudicial conjecture and canned talking points were the kind of thing that creationists have to deal with far too often. People throw that junk at us, and then refuse to consider our answers or the links we give them. (For that matter, many critics of this site only read my introductions and do not bother with the important material that is linked.) Nye did that same schtick. I found his insistence on his talking points and refusal to see any of Ham's points to be disingenuous.

Although courteous, there were some subtle insults about Ken Ham "and his followers". Sorry, Bill, there are thousands of creationists, and not all of them have even heard of Ken Ham, nor are they his "followers". Also, Nye's remarks about "this troubles me" regarding rejection of evolution (and his insistence on the fallacy of equivocating "science" with "evolution") struck me as irksome. Who appointed him as the guardian of science, and why does science have to be done his way? Especially since Ham showed that belief in evolution is not required to be an effective scientist!

Ken Ham was kind and gracious, but not the dynamic speaker that I know he can be. He did not keep Nye on topic and "hold his feet to the fire" on some points, as one reviewer stated. Ham also rambled a bit, which was distracting, and did not stay on topic as well as he should have. I am glad that he brought up the fact that creationist scientists have models, such as Noah's Ark and geology, that they will disagree on (isn't that what science is for?) but they will agree on the Scriptures.

I have to say that the moderator, Tom Foreman, did a good job. Some people were skeptical and thought he was being selective with the cards for the question and answer session. I disagree.

Overall, the debate was somewhat disappointing for me. Ken Ham did present strong evidence and he proclaimed the gospel. Ken and I are unashamed that the Bible is our starting point. By the time the Q&A session was happening, I wanted it to be over so I could get back to organizing Question Evolution Day. But I went to bed instead, I have a job to go to. But know this, Ken Ham was proved right: this is about worldviews, not "evidence".

Here are some Christian links for your perusal (I will not claim to endorse or agree with each one):

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Genetics — Not a Friend of Evolution

Writing this on Monday, February 3. The big debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Anti-Science guy should be over. For the three-year anniversary of this site, here is some science until I get time to write about the debate. The article that I will link is in two parts, the second part is linked at the end of the first where it says "to be continued".

Evolution is an ancient pagan religion. After various attempts to make it appear scientific before and during the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin managed to popularize it in 1859 and 1871. People grabbed evolution as a means to reject God while appearing scientific and intellectual. Darwin taught that natural selection was the basis of changes in species. Creationists also believe in natural selection, as it eliminates organisms that are unfit for certain environments and is scientifically verified. However, traditional Darwinism had to abandon natural selection as a means of molecules-to-man evolution. (Surprisingly, some people are uninformed that they are holding to a belief system that has been left behind for decades; creationists often educate them. Or try to.)
"Chromosome And Dna" by cooldesign / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
The new and more correct term is neo-Darwinism because genetics became the great hope for the salvation of evolutionism. Now we hear about DNA and mutations giving rise to more advanced organisms. No mechanism can be seen for this, and the vast majority of mutations are harmful. Some are neutral. Those that can be termed as beneficial are often disputed — a benefit can be seen from one point of view, but the organism is harmed in other ways.

Then there is the problem of information. DNA carries an unbelievable amount of information. Mutations do not add raw material to the information. Genetic changes do three things: Remove existing information, rearrange it or ruin it. Genetics and information do not account for the origin of life itself, either. Like we read in the book of Genesis, creatures reproduce and do not change into other creatures. Genetics and information are the friends of biblical creationists.

[Link removed, I learned that the organization holds theological views that I cannot endorse.]

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate, Anti-Creationists and Preemptive Damage Control

Ken Ham, Bill Nye, creationism, creation science, evolution, education

Atheists are in a tizzy over the debate, and have launched into damage control mode. Their assertions and accusations are amusing as well as defamatory and libelous.

Before I continue, some housekeeping: The big debate between creation science apologist Ken Ham and Bill "I Play a Scientist on TV" Nye is schedule to take place on February 4, 2014 at 7 PM Eastern Time. People will probably be expecting me to give an analysis of the debate. If I do, it will not be the next day because I go to work at 6 AM.

Excuses are already being offered. One is that Bill Nye is naïve and going against an expert charlatan, so he doesn't stand a chance. Richard Dawkins thinks this debate is a bad idea as well. Various articles, comments and so on around the Web are polarized. Some say that Nye will make Ham crumble to scientific facts (news flash: assertions are not "facts", Skippy). P.Z. Myers seems to agreeHumanists are saying it's a good thing for similar reasons, that "science" will win over Ham's faith-based assertions, which is more prejudicial conjecture (and there is a false claim in the previously linked article that attendance in the Creation Museum is declining, but that is also false). But most seem to be saying that Nye is making a big mistake. In addition, the claim is made that Ken Ham is an experienced debater, but that is not the case. Ham says that both are communicators, so in this regard, it should be on equal footing.

The making of excuses and accusations is typical of atheopaths, as the recent defamation against Ray Comfort and his Evolution vs God video is a good example. What they hope to gain by demonizing the person instead of using facts to support their position is beyond me. Think about it, are people really so galactically stupid as to say that men and women who believe in a holy God that hates lying will lie to get you to believe in God through the salvation that is freely given through Jesus Christ? Oh, please! Perhaps an indication of Ham's character is that he has not sued many people for libel and retired.

Here is a short video that gives you some idea of the mindset of many atheopaths:

Having written some "Logic Lessons" and podcasts about logical fallacies, what I saw in the video practically screamed at me (as did so many things that I've read). Many of the comments were libelous and defamatory (we creationists get a lot of that, plus stalkers as well). They also included prejudicial conjecture, poisoning the well, appeal to motive, ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, assertion and more. Remember, gang, these people are smarter than we are just because they're atheists or agnostics, even though they cannot actually use the "reason" that they pretend to proclaim.

One of the faulty assumptions is that the debate is between science and theology, which is false.

Bill Nye made comments that showed several of these fallacies at one time. He conflated "science" with "evolution", demonstrating that he does not know the difference between the speculations and assumptions of historical science and the observable science that he did on television. Evolution is based on faith, not science. In addition, he has made statements that I believe are outright dishonest. Nye also claims that belief in evolution is essential to scientific progress, but that, too, is not true. The hoary canard that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is also the opposite of the truth. In my opinion, Nye's religion is "scientism".

I am on record saying that Bill Nye will lose this debate because of his faulty understanding of the nature of science and because of his lack of logic. The whole point is not just about "winning" this or any other debate. Ken Ham said,
“A debate with Mr. Nye, nationally known for his children’s TV program and for promoting evolution, will be one of our major events in 2014 to highlight how children and teens are being influenced by evolutionary thinking," declared Ham. “This year, our AiG theme is ‘Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids.’ Having the opportunity to hold a cordial but spirited debate with such a well-known personality who is admired by so many young people will help bring the creation/evolution issue to the attention of many more people, including youngsters.”

Ham added, “I hope to show Mr. Nye and our debate audience that observational science confirms the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of origins, not evolution.”
— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!